I have specified whether a certain feature is optional or not. If an implementor indeed decides to implement an option, then they “should” implement certain things specified in that section. I am afraid “MAY” would cause the optional feature not being implemented correctly.
Thanks, Rong On 5/23/16, 5:45 PM, "Ben Campbell" <b...@nostrum.com> wrote: >On 23 May 2016, at 19:32, Rong Pan (ropan) wrote: > >> I am not sure how to address the following. >> >> Instead of ³SHOULD², what would be a good alternative word? > > >The question is, are the features intended to be truly optional, or >things people really should implement unless they have a really good >reason not to? > >If the former, then you could change the SHOULDs to MAYs. If the latter, >then you could describe them as "recommended" features vs "optional" >features. > > >> >> Regarding ³experimental², Chair, Mirja, what would be the best way >> to >> address? > >I don't mean to speak for Mirja, but from my own perspective, there is >language in the shepherd's write up that could be adapted for the >introduction, or a short separate section. > >Thanks, > >Ben. > >> >> Thanks, >> >> Rong >> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> COMMENT: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> In section 5 and its children: Please keep in mind that "SHOULD" does >>> not >>> mean quite the same thing as "optional". >>> >>> It would be nice to see some text about the nature of the >>> "experiment". >>> That is, why is this experimental? Do you expect to promote this to a >>> standard in the future? (The shepherd's report speaks of this; the >>> draft >>> should, too.) >>> >>> _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
